Mr. Speaker, western Canadians are at a loss to explain the environment minister's decision to close critical weather stations. The minister wants to close pivotal weather stations putting all our citizens and our agricultural industry at risk.

Why is he now asking Agriculture Canada to fund these critical weather stations and not his own department?

Mr. Speaker, the objective of Environment Canada's meteorological services is to provide the very best weather forecast that we can for Canadians everywhere.

This does not mean continuing with old technology and continuing with organization of our personnel and managers which are related to old technology. It means taking into account new technology, such as computers, satellites and Doppler radar. If those three things are not understood by the hon. member, I will explain to her what a computer is, what a satellite is, and what Doppler radar is.

A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) of sums required for the public service of Canada in the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2003, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Estimates of the sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2004, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Members will recall that I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to share with the House the proposed resolution that the Canadian government will put before the UN Security Council as a possible option to the two resolutions that are now before the Security Council. I was told by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in question period that there was no such resolution. I forget exactly what he said, but it was to the effect that it was a non-paper.

We have here a press report which says that the Canadian proposal is being circulated at the UN. There is obviously a proposal that is being circulated at the UN and I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to table that proposal in the House of Commons so that members of Parliament can at least see what members of the UN Security Council--

The hon. member is an experienced member. He knows that some proposals that circulate are purely oral. We cannot conclude that because the newspaper report says a certain thing that therefore there must be a document or a writing.

The hon. member I know has an interest in the subject. He can pursue the matter in question period tomorrow. I strongly suspect that the Minister of Foreign Affairs may even be putting in an appearance some time soon before the foreign affairs committee, for all I know. Again the matter could be pursued there.

I do not think it is a point of order. It sounds like a supplementary question to me. With great respect, I think he ought to raise it at another time and place.

Mr. Speaker, it says the Canadian idea was circulated around the UN Tuesday receiving a mixed response. I do not know what oral circulation is all about, but I know what is generally meant when people say that a proposal was circulated. It generally means there was something written that people could read and we want to read it.

The hon. member has made his point. It may or may not be in writing. The Speaker obviously does not know. I listened to the answer given by the minister. He indicated that it appeared to be an idea that was floating around, that was being circulated. Sometimes the media gets things inaccurately too.

The hon. member thinks I was kidding. No, it does happen occasionally.

I know the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona will want to pursue the matter. I have said that. However I do not think it is a point of order. The minister did not refer to a document so we cannot force him to table it. He has made his point. I am sure that the minister will look at this point of order very carefully and consider what he will say the next time the hon. member, or one of his colleagues, asks him a question on this very subject, which I suspect might happen quite soon.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the failure of the Minister of Finance to rise in the House to deliver a statement on amendments or changes to the budget. I will be brief. I could have risen on a question of privilege and put forward an argument that a contempt had taken place. I believe that it has but I would rather not divide the House.

On February 18 the Minister of Finance delivered a budget to the House. At great expense to the people of Canada, documents were prepared and the media was locked up and briefed. The minister rose in the House and spoke for over an hour. That statement to the House of Commons stands as the budgetary policy of the government. The government, as I know only too well, stands or falls on the budget and it does so by vote in the House of Commons. The budget and its approval are central to the survival of government.

The House is now engaged in four days of debate on the budget. Last evening the House voted on the first of a number of amendments concerning the budgetary policy of government. That debate is a prelude to the important decision that will be taken when the House decides by vote whether it approves of the budgetary policy of government. This decision is vital.

Marleau and Montpetit, on page 753, states that concurrence in any Ways and Means motions “may not be proposed until the Ways and Means proceeding on the Budget itself is completed”. That is another way of saying that the House must vote to approve the budgetary policy of government before the government can ask the House to approve its tax measures. Therefore the decision to accept or reject a budget is one of the core decisions we take.

The problem is that in this House we do not know with any certainty what that policy is. Nor do we know what provisions are in the budget.

The Minister of Finance made his speech in the House of Commons. Then according to media reports last weekend, the Prime Minister contradicted the Minister of Finance concerning Olympic funding and policy. The Prime Minister did so outside the House of Commons. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Finance has seen fit to acquaint the House with any changes to what the Minister of Finance said on February 18.

The House is left in the odious position of having the minister tell the House one thing, having the minister table documents that say one thing, and now we are told in the media that what was said in the House and what was tabled in the House is no longer applicable.

Three hundred and one members of the House of Commons are in the process of debating and voting on the budget that is being altered by the Prime Minister's whim and off the cuff imperious comments to the media.

The government owes it to the House, if it has any sense of accountability to Parliament, any sense of transparency, any sense of respect for the members of the House, particularly those silent souls who say that they support the government, to tell the House, in the House, what changes are being made to the budget. All of us need to know.

Changes have taken place in past budgets. I recall the infamous budget presented by the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen in 1981. Changes were made in that budget and the changes were announced in the House of Commons. Perhaps the government House leader will argue his procedural doctrine is superior to that of Mr. MacEachen but if he does, I think he will be alone in that contention. Mr. MacEachen knew that announcements were to be made in front of one's peers in the House of Commons.

I could also site the budget changes of Walter Gordon, but I need not burden the House.

In conclusion, the people of Canada send all of us here to treat their business seriously. If the government has decided, for whatever reason, to alter the statements of policy and intention as stated in the House on February 18, we need to know the details before we vote on the budget and we need these facts to be stated in the House by a minister rising under statements or in debate. It is simply not acceptable for the Minister of Finance to present a budget and then have the Prime Minister tell the media “Oh, we really didn't mean that”.

I began by stating that I felt this was contempt of the House. I doubt that members opposite would vote to support that premise. However I do invite members opposite to look to themselves and remind themselves that they were elected to the House of Commons by the people of Canada and that they must demand, in the name of accountability and probity of the public business, that the Minister of Finance inform the House just what changes have been made in the budget since it was tabled on February 18.

The House is entitled to know what the policy is before we vote. At the moment the Minister of Finance has said one thing here and the Prime Minister has, apparently, contradicted him outside the House.

Don BoudriaLiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a few things that the hon. member said here which may assist the Chair.

First, it is not the budget statement that is made in the House, that is the budget itself. It is the instrument that is tabled by the minister prior to him reading the budget statement. Mr. Speaker will no doubt knows this as indeed would most hon. members. The document that was tabled in the House constitutes the budgetary document of the government.

A reference was made by the hon. member who just spoke about the requirement for concurrence in a ways and means motion following which the budget bill will be introduced. I have already indicated to House leaders, and I will be giving more detail on this tomorrow, what date the final budget vote will take place. It is only by our constitutional conventions, following the day of the vote on the main motion of the budget, that a minister of the crown tables and then seeks the House's concurrence in the ways and means motion, and only following that will the budget bill be introduced. Forty-eight hours or more later, the bill will be debated in the House.

What is in fact in those budget bills is not known to the hon. member across nor is it even known to myself at the present point because I do not yet have a copy of the document in question.

For him to somehow infer that the procedures that were used were not the appropriate ones, I do not believe bears any resemblance to what in fact has occurred.

On the other point the hon. member raised, he inferred that somehow all expenditures of the government had to be in, not only the budgetary document but in the statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House. Everyone knows that in the day to day operations of the government that is not quite the way it works. The motion that is produced to the House by the hon. Minister of Finance is that this House concur in general with the expenditure plan or the budget of the government. That is the phrase, I believe, almost word for word, that is placed here, following which an amendment and then a subamendment is placed before the House.

I think the Chair should consider all these things. If the Chair does, I believe the Speaker will conclude that nothing at all has occurred here, at least thus far, which is out of order, and I suspect nothing at all with regard to the budget. Although Mr. Speaker will be able to arrive at the conclusion himself once all these things have been tabled and actually introduced. In the case of the budget bill, this will be in some days from now.

The Chair thanks the hon. member for St. John's West and the government House leader for their interventions on the point. I will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled “Canada's Role in Addressing the Iraqi Humanitarian Crisis”.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, your committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), referred to the committee on October 24, 2002.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-405, an act to provide compensation to First Nations veterans on a comparable basis to that given to other war veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this bill to the House of Commons once again to provide adequate compensation to second world war and Korean war first nations veterans.

First nations people were treated differently when they came back from these wars than non-first nations people. The bill would provide adequate compensation to the first nations people. It would have a national apology granted to them and also establish a scholarship in their name to honour the contribution they made to this country during the second world war and the Korean war.

Geoff ReganLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That 11 members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be authorized to travel to Vancouver; Edmonton; Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Steinbach, Manitoba; Halifax; Sussex, New Brunswick; Sudbury; Toronto; Iqaluit; Montreal; Rimouski; or elsewhere in Canada, in April and May 2003 in order to hold public hearings in relation to its study on marriage and the legal recognition of same-sex unions, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, particularly Eganville, Barry's Bay, Golden Lake and Cobden, asking that Parliament recognize that the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College is essential to training Canadians for emergency situations, that the facility should stay in Arnprior and that the government should upgrade the facilities in order to provide the necessary training to Canadians.